Discussion for article #238480
Run Donald, run!
2 Likes
I had been tempted to bring up the comparison within comments of other posts but I see the differences between the two as HUGE.
Perot was, more often than not, specific and detailed (remember the half hour TV timeslots he bought were he went through his charts?). Trump will be all rhetoric until he drops out. Donât expect more about any issue than assurances that he has a secret plan â like he does for ISIS. Perot was (is) self-made (no bankruptcies that I know of), participated in his own heroics, was a family man in the way that is expected in the conservative narrative. Although various GOPers have blown gaping holes in the âfamily valuesâ brand in recent years Trump will still be asked about the habit of trading in wives for newer models (and test driving them while still married).
In short, Perot could go toe-to-toe with any candidate (using facts, ideas, and reason) whereas Trump has nothing but bluster. That might work in business, especially where you hold all the cards, but Trump will be eaten alive using that approach in the later part of the campaign.
Sure, Perot had some eccentricities, and some weird ideas but I donât think the comparison fits at all.
5 Likes
Yes, and Bernie Sanders is the new Ralph Nader (and the misty-eyed version of Candidate Obama, because anything that can throw Hillary under the bus is too irresistible for upper-middle-class lefties who loathe her).
Perot was once described as âhalf wombat, half Ferengiâ
Trump is 100% asshat
2 Likes
specific and detailed?
Perot never once provided any details but always claimed to have plans that would be disclosed at a later date.
Except that Bernie wonât run as an independent and what you call throwing under the bus others would call debate.
2 Likes
The article nails the biggest difference right on the head; the notion that Perot voters were all republican. Trump voters without a doubt will be.
And thatâs probably the single biggest reason why he wonât jump to a 3rd party candidacy. He knows that throwing the election for Hillary would be hung around his neck foreverâŚand he is relying on those people in the future for his next reality TV extravaganza.
1 Like
[quote=âMasterLever, post:6, topic:23846â]
Perot never once provided any details[/quote]
Are you saying those multiple half-hour prime-time lectures with the charts/diagrams where not details? Or are you saying they were not real-enough details? This was, after all, a campaign so if you mean there was no written project plan presented you are correct about that.
I just went to YouTube to affirm to myself that they werenât all fluff. I see explanations of what needs to be done, how it will be done, and dollar for dollar where money will be saved, where money will be raised and where (and how) money will be spent
And now for some truthiness http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/14/824800/-History-Perot-was-NOT-a-Spoiler-in-1992-or-1996#
1 Like
Probably, though his ego is getting more and more tied up in the idea of running. But unless polls start showing him gaining on Hillary in a head-to-head (fat chance/heaven forbid), his ego, and the demographic consideration you note, are ultimately likely to lead him out of the race.
[ @TheDebunkifier, I see you posted a short version of the following while I was droning on; nice to have multiple sources for those who still believe the myth. Though itâs not truthiness â check Colbertâs definition â itâs truth.]
And forgive me for using your comment to go off on a long tangent, Davey, but the authorâs observation and yours that the âPerot gave the election to Clinton!â line is a myth brought joy to my heart, because itâs kind of the original âzombie lieâ (a GOP disinformation campaign so successful that not just the media but most Democrats believe it) and has been one of my obsessions since it was first uttered. And not just because it was a lie, but because this little piece of GOP disinformation has been cited ever since that election in order to: 1) initially, help the GOP paint Clinton as an illegitimate president whose agenda therefore the GOP would do everything they could to block (yes, cuddly old Bob Dole said that publicly at the time); and 2) over the longer term, help the GOP drum into everyoneâs (mostly the mediaâs) heads that weâre a right-leaning country and hence that any Democrat, not to mention any liberal, who happens to sneak through our anti-lefty defenses and actually assume office is clearly there only by fluke or fraud, which means the GOP is justified in preventing him/her from carrying out his/her nefarious program.
For those who doubt, the best documentation I can find online these days is this â http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm â which is a data-rich look back at that election written in 2012. Worth reading and spreading around; but in brief, from the time Perot dropped out of the race until the time he dropped back in, Clinton never polled at less than a healthy double-digit lead over Bush. And exit polls on election day showed that Perot voters were roughly evenly split between those whoâd have voted for Bush and those whoâd have voted for Clinton (a bunch would have just stayed home). The lovely E.J. Dionne wrote a few WaPo stories noting the same right after the election; canât find them at a quick search, but theyâre referred to here: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml. The bottom line: Perot made no difference â none â to the election results. Indeed, far from costing Bush the election, Perot cost Clinton the ability to claim a mandate. And weâve been paying for the GOPâs ability to convince people otherwise ever since.
3 Likes
I know for a fact not all votes for Perot were from repugs. I also know trump is not half the man Perot was.
2 Likes
Trumpâs grotesque antics and inflammatory statements make Perot look like a statesman.
1 Like
Ron Paul reminds me somewhat of Perot. Paul had some significant positions left of the GOP, such as getting out of foreign invasions, most important difference from GOP, and reducing our military budget. Paul was also eclectic in his policies and similarly provided details of how heâd implement them. Paulâs son is less impressive than his Dad, by far, no contest. I think both Perot and Paul could have made their presidencies at least somewhat positive for We The People, compared to dubya and Obama anyhow. Paulâs reduction of military budget and foreign invasions would have been particularly significant.
And Perot never struck me as a lying piece of shitâŚthe Donald on the other handâŚ
You need to inform yourself a little better, maybe listen to what Sanders has to say and check his policy positions. (Hint, they track extremely well with what people say they want. Like polling in the high 70% range http://billmoyers.com/2015/06/01/mainstream-bernie-sanders/ .) Also Iâd like to see some documentation on that upper middle class leftie loathing of Hillary, it sounds a lot like something pulled out of someoneâs ass.
1 Like
Donald Trump is running as a right-winger, but I donât necessarily believe most of what he says. Iâve seen interviews where he supported universal health care (by what mechanism was unclear) and was very pro-choice. Did he really have some great conversion? If so, he has yet to explain it, As recently as 2012, he was pro-immigration reform and called Romneyâs âself deportationâ plan insulting to immigrants. So which is the real Donald Trump? Only the loud-mouthed braggart; that is guaranteed 100% him-the rest could change on a dime. It wouldnât surprise me in the slightest that, if he won the primaries, he would attack Hillary from the left. He is truly that crass and without principles. One reason the Republicans are scared of him is that they honestly donât know what he would do as President.
So, the Perot parallel is being loud-mouthed braggarts who took positions that no one could be sure whether they really believed or not,
His fans may act like Naderâs, or not, but I truly doubt Bernie would follow Naderâs path to the nadir of political responsibility. I expect him to encourage his partisans to vote for Hillary in the general. Iâll be disappointed with him if he doesnât. To anyone who stays home because he isnât the nominee, Iâll say this in advance: Go to hell. Youâre trying to create it on earth, but just go sample the real thing.
1 Like
Actually, Paulâs positions on reducing military spending and avoiding military adventures are classic conservative positions. Patrick Buchanan espoused similar positions during the first Gulf War circa 1990.
Before Pearl Harbor, many Republicans opposed FDRâs desire to enter World War II, and favored what we today call isolationist or non-interventionist foreign policy. That position today is dubbed paleo-conservative, in contrast with the neo-conservative position advanced in the 1970s by Irving Kristol and others, which argued for a more muscular military posture and a reduced emphasis on diplomacy and âsoft power.â
Oh, sure he does.
Iâll bet thereâs nary a gun in sight anywhere near him.